IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 LAWRENCE BREWSTER Regional Solicitor DAVID KAHN Counsel for Employment Standards KATHERINE KASAMEYER Trial Attorney Kasameyer.katherine@dol.gov CA State Bar No. Office of the Solicitor United States Department of Labor 0 th Street, Suite -00 San Francisco, California 0 Telephone (- Fax ( - Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States Department of Labor HILDA L. SOLIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff, v. D.S. Waters of America, Inc., d/b/a Sparkletts, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. COMPLAINT. Plaintiff Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, (the Secretary brings this action for damages, injunctive, and other relief for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act of, as amended ( U.S.C. 0 et seq., ( FMLA or the Act to enforce the provisions of 0, 0, and 0 of the Act, U.S.C.,,, and the Regulations published at C.F.R. Part.. Jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon the Court by 0(b( - -

2 Case :-cv-0-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 and (d of the Act, U.S.C. (b( and (d.. Defendant D.S. Waters of America, Inc., d/b/a Sparkletts ( D.S. Waters is a corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. D.S. Waters provides bottled water and beverages to purchasers across the country and operates out of a facility located at 0 West Broadway Road, Mesa, Arizona,.. Defendant is now, and was at all relevant times, a covered employer as defined by 0( of the Act, U.S.C. (.. On or about December, 0, D.S. Waters purchased O Waters, LLC, which was doing business as O Premium Water ( O Premium.. O Premium was, at all relevant times, a covered employer as defined by 0( of the Act, U.S.C. (.. D.S. Waters is a successor in interest to O Premium for purposes of the FMLA, pursuant to 0( of the Act, U.S.C. (, and C.F.R..0.. Peter Lyle ( Mr. Lyle worked as a route driver for O Premium until December 0.. At all relevant times, Mr. Lyle was an eligible employee, as defined by 0((A of the Act, U.S.C. ((A, and C.F.R During the course of his employment by O Premium, Mr. Lyle suffered a serious health condition which made him unable to perform the functions of his position as defined by 0(a((D of the Act, U.S.C. (a((d, and C.F.R..,. and... Mr. Lyle provided O Premium proper notice of his need for leave because of his serious health condition, consistent with 0(e of the Act, U.S.C. (e, and C.F.R..0.. O Premium approved Mr. Lyle s FMLA leave. - -

3 Case :-cv-0-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Mr. Lyle went on FMLA leave on or about December, 0.. While Mr. Lyle was on FMLA leave, on or about December, 0, D.S. Waters purchased O Premium.. D.S. Waters retained Mr. Lyle s colleagues, the O Premium route drivers, using an application process less rigorous than the D.S. Waters regular process for hiring new employees.. Mr. Lyle initially sought employment from D.S. Waters through the process described in paragraph.. Mr. Lyle later applied for employment through D.S. Waters regular hiring procedure for new hires.. D.S. Waters did not retain Mr. Lyle or provide him with employment benefits.. D.S. Waters never restored Mr. Lyle to the position of employment that he held before he went on FMLA leave, or to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.. D.S. Waters used Mr. Lyle s FMLA leave as a negative factor in making employment decisions about him.. Through the actions in paragraphs through Defendant violated 0, 0, and 0 of the Act, U.S.C.,,, and C.F.R..,.,.,. and other relevant regulations by interfering with, restraining, and/or denying Mr. Lyle the exercise of rights provided under the Act. WHEREFORE, the Secretary prays for a Judgment against Defendant as follows: ( For an Order pursuant to 0(b of the Act, U.S.C. (b, finding Defendant liable for unpaid wages, salary, employment benefits and other compensation due, and actual monetary losses sustained by Mr. Lyle as a direct - -

4 Case :-cv-0-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 result of the violation, plus interest and liquidated damages; ( For an Order pursuant to 0(d of the Act, U.S.C. (d(, permanently enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act in its behalf and interest from violating the provisions of 0, 0, and 0 of the Act, U.S.C.,,, including the restraint of any withholding of payment of wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation, plus interest, found by the court to be due to Mr. Lyle; - -

5 Case :-cv-0-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 ( An Order pursuant to 0(d of the Act, U.S.C. (d(, awarding such other equitable relief as may be appropriate, including employment, reinstatement, and promotion to Mr. Lyle; and ( For an Order granting such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Respectfully submitted this th day of October,. M. Patricia Smith Solicitor of Labor Lawrence Brewster Regional Solicitor David Kahn Counsel for Employment Standards /s/ Katherine M. Kasameyer Katherine M. Kasameyer Trial Attorney U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR Attorneys for the Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff - -